On Tuesday 20 July 2004 21:08, Holger Waechtler wrote: [snip] > Also non-i2c hardware like 8-bit parallel uC-busses, SPI busses and even > 1-wire busses are common. > > 8-bit parallel and SPI-interfaces are usually used in chipsets shipped > by U.S. manufacturers like Motorola and Broadcom. Even if the name > dvb_i2c was a little misleading this code did not implemented anything > specific to i2c -- you could simply rename every dvb_i2c_bus occurence > to dvb_uC_bus. [snip]
Thanks for the info. [snip] > well -- I still can't see the deep reason for this, the recent patches > usually added ~20-100 lines of code complexity to each file, so where is > the point of "getting rid" of something? There wasn't that much complexity added was there? The bulk of the patches was replacing dvb_i2c with i2c_adapter. > wouldn't it be better to replace the from-scratch list-and-device > handling in dvb_i2c.[hc] by the driver/bus infrastructure in 2.6 that > provides the same functionality and to rename every dvb_i2c occurence by > dvb_uC in order to mirror the additional flexibility of this code? I'm not sure anymore..does anyone else have an oppinion on this before I do the rest of the conversions? Kenneth
